Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; February 2003; v. 22; no. 2; p. 96-105; DOI: 10.1190/1.1559035
© 2003 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DeAngelo, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Knapp, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Depth registration of P-wave and C-wave seismic data for shallow marine sediment characterization, Gulf of Mexico

Michael V. DeAngelo, Milo Backus, Bob A. Hardage and Paul Murray

Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, U.S.

Steve Knapp

Seitel Data, Houston, Texas, U.S.

Corresponding author: michael.deangelo@beg.utexas.edu

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Multicomponent seismic data, combining P-wave and converted P-to-SV wave (C-wave) wavefields, provide independent measurements of rock and fluid properties. Unlike P waves, C waves are minimally affected by changes in pore fluids, and in cases of azimuthal anisotropy, will be split into two modes (fast and slow) with differing polarization. The 4C, 3D ocean-bottom cable (OBC) multicomponent seismic data discussed here were acquired in shallow water (<300 ft) offshore Louisiana over approximately 455 miles2 (Figure 1). Because these data are still being marketed to interested oil and gas operators, only data above targeted oil and gas reservoirs (<5000 ft) were used. The P-wave migrated data extend to only 1 s and the C-wave migrated data volume to only 2 s.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (107K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Location of 4C, 3D OBC survey.

 
The initial objectives of the survey were to improve P-wave reflection quality by combining hydrophone and vertical-geophone data and to improve structural interpretation in the presence of "gas clouds" with C-wave data. Our additional research objectives were to evaluate seismic attributes, such as VP/VS velocity ratios and Poisson's ratio derived from P-wave and C-wave data, for characterizing shallow seafloor sediments and to develop practical poststack 3D data interpretation methodologies to capitalize on these unique characteristics. These research findings will be used later to analyze seafloor properties across gas hydrate prospects. Gas (methane) hydrates in the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) typically are not manifested by the classic bottom simulating reflector (BSR) and seem always associated with P-wave data "wipeouts" in gas clouds (verbal communication, Harry Roberts, Louisiana State University). The inability of conventional P-wave surveys to image the internal stratigraphy of gas hydrate systems in the GOM warrants further study. Diagnostic multicomponent seismic attributes that locate shallow hazard zones just above marine gas-hydrate deposits can optimize well placement strategy and . . . [Full Text of this Article]






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists